PAGE
| 1 | 2 | 3
| 4 | 5 | 6
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
| 11 | 12 | 13
PREVIOUS - NEXT
Statement of Facts (cont.)
32. PLAINTIFF complained about the pattern and practice of LAPD Rampart, in targeting gang members without probable cause, assaulting them, and retaliating against any others that complain.
33. Due to these investigations, PLAINTIFF reported his complaints and his desire to expand his investigation. Again, PLAINTIFF was ordered to leave it alone.
34. During these investigations, PLAINTIFF was continually admonished as he was in the GAINES investigation. PLAINTIFF was repeatedly being told by DEFENDANT PARKS (who was chief deputy supervising Internal Affairs at the time) to leave it alone. Moreover, PLAINTIFF was instructed to get general statements from witnesses (i.e. nothing detailed), and to only use what is called "compelled" statements. "Compelled" statements are statements made by police officers during an internal affairs investigation that is protected from disclosure under law. Therefore, an investigator could receive an incriminating "compelled" statement regarding police abuse of power and/or civil rights violations, and not legally be required to disclose it to anyone, including the Los Angeles District Attorney. LAPD Internal Affairs only illicit enough "compelled" statements to get the officer's fired, without tipping anybody off as to possible criminal activity or civil rights abuses.
35. PLAINTIFF believes these admonishments were the pattern and practice of LAPD internal affairs, fellow officers, and supervisors.
36. In the fall of 1998, PLAINTIFF met with DEFENDANT PARKS, DEFENDANT HERNANDEZ, and other high ranking LAPD officials. DEFENDANT PARKS wanted a status report on the HEWITT and PEREZ investigation.
37. On or about fall of 1998, PLAINTIFF informed DEFENDANT PARKS, DEFENDANT HERNANDEZ, and all other top ranking officials that there were problems with several officers at the LAPD RAMPART division, there was a lack of supervision at Rampart, and that his investigation was not complete, and that in order to make a solid case for the District Attorney, he would need more time to gather additional information.
38. DEFENDANT PARKS cut him off, and told him `no!'. Further, DEFENDANT PARKS ordered him to `limit your investigation to the Jimenez case [see paragraph 18]. Don't add any of that.'
39. PLAINTIFF was in shock, and explained to directly to DEFENDANT PARKS, with all other officials within the room, that `it was more than just this case. It goes a lot deeper than that. You've got a group of vigilante cops at Rampart Division.'
40. DEFENDANT PARKS ordered PLAINTIFF to have his report in two weeks.
PAGE | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13
PREVIOUS - NEXT
Copyright © 2000 Leo Terrell Enterprises
